On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 02:09:43PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > On Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:44:35 -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote: > > I was recently reminded that the version of aptitude in etch still > > has bug #415468, now re-opened as bug #438725. To summarize, it means > > that aptitude's manpage looks like this: > > > > To select a particular version of the package, append > > “\fB=<version>\fR” to the package name: for instance, > > “\fBaptitude install apt=0.3.1\fR”. Similarly, to select a > > package from a particular archive, append “\fB/<archive>\fR” > > to the package name: for instance, “\fBaptitude install > > yes, that looks ugly. > > > This has been fixed for a long time in unstable, but the fix didn't > > make it into etch. Luckily, the version of DocBook that shipped with > > etch generates correct output for the version of the aptitude > > documentation that shipped with etch. So all that's needed is a simple > > rebuild and aptitude's manpages will be readable again. > > > > Is it possible that an aptitude rebuild could be worked into the next > > stable revision? > > Actually, i do not see the severity for this bug to be release-critical. > It looks ugly, but hey, one can still read it. So i would say: no. Luk, > Andi, if you are different opinion, please say so.
OK, that's what I more-or-less expected, but I figured I had an obligation to at least try, once, to get a useful manpage into stable. :) Maybe I'll see about making my own repository with a fixed version. Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
